Senior counsel Nelson Havi has reignited controversy surrounding Kenya’s judiciary after publicly accusing Chief Magistrate Nathan Shiundu Lutta of corruption and compromising a high-profile criminal case.
The dispute comes ahead of Lutta’s consideration for elevation to the High Court.
Havi’s accusations, made on social media platform X on 10th February 2026, allege that Magistrate Lutta, who presided over a case involving a policeman accused of defiling his daughter, issued a questionable ruling in favor of the officer.
“The Judicial Service Commission should not allow Nathan Shiundu Lutta, who was compromised to free a policeman who defiled his daughter, to become a judge. He can sue me if he wants, following the precedent of Isaac Lenaola,” Havi stated.
In response, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) issued a formal letter to Lutta, notifying him of Havi’s public allegations.
Signed by JSC Secretary Winfridah B. Mokaya, CBS, the communication cited Section 9(1)(c) of Part III of the First Schedule of the Judicial Service Act, referencing an earlier public call for information on shortlisted candidates for High Court appointments.
The letter requested Lutta’s response to the bribery claims within seven days of receipt, providing both the contested judgement and a screenshot of Havi’s social media posts.
The JSC emphasized that this process is part of its mandate to ensure transparency and public participation in judicial appointments.
Havi, reacting to the JSC’s letter, doubled down on his criticism, warning that the judiciary will face public scrutiny if corruption or incompetence persists.
“Judges and magistrates who perpetuate corruption, impunity, or are manifestly incompetent be warned. You may get away with the procured judgment or ruling, but we will haunt you forever to ensure your career is ruined for the greater good of the People of Kenya,” he said.
Havi also indicated that Lutta’s performance during the upcoming interview scheduled for Monday will be closely monitored.
The senior counsel’s statements signal growing public debate over judicial integrity and the role of social media in holding officials accountable.
The case highlights the tension between judicial independence and public oversight, raising questions about the mechanisms for vetting judicial nominees and addressing allegations of corruption.
With the High Court appointment process underway, Lutta’s response to the JSC will likely influence both public perception and his prospects for elevation.
The JSC has maintained that all shortlisted candidates must respond to concerns raised, stressing the importance of a transparent, credible, and accountable judicial appointment process.